pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.07144 · v1 · pith:MGVCFRPWnew · submitted 2026-06-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · physics.ao-ph

Freo Doctor: Atmospheric Modelling for Meteorite Falls and Spacecraft Re-Entries

Hadrien Devillepoix , Martin Cup\'ak This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 21:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP physics.ao-ph
keywords meteorite fallsatmospheric modelingwind effectsfireball observationstrajectory predictionmeteorite recoveryspacecraft re-entries
0
0 comments X

The pith

Wind model differences shift predicted meteorite ground positions by a median of 143 meters for 1 kg objects, exceeding fireball observation errors.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses high-resolution atmospheric modeling to measure how wind affects the final descent path of meteorites after they are observed as fireballs. Different model runs produce ground position differences with a median of 143 m for 1 kg meteorites and 307 m for 10 g ones, and these differences are larger than the typical less than 100 m uncertainty from bright-flight observations. The effect is largest during extreme weather and is smaller at 3 km resolution than at 1 km resolution. The models have already been applied to recover 12 meteorites, and the full set of 1107 calculations for 302 events is released openly.

Core claim

In most cases the differences on the ground positions are significant: median shift for a 1 kg meteorite is 143 m, doubling to 307 m for a 10 g rock, though these vary by over an order of magnitude between events. The differences wind model choice makes on the ground are significantly larger than the typical uncertainty on meteoroid state vector obtained from bright flight observations of the fireball (<100 m), and should be taken into account when predicting meteorite free-fall path to the ground.

What carries the argument

Weather Research and Forecasting models of the lower 30 km atmosphere run at 1 km spatial resolution, with multiple initialisation times serving as a proxy for uncertainty.

If this is right

  • Median ground shifts reach 143 m for 1 kg meteorites and 307 m for 10 g rocks.
  • Shifts are largest during documented extreme weather events and vary by more than an order of magnitude across cases.
  • Models at 1 km resolution perform better than those at 3 km resolution.
  • The same models have guided field teams to 12 meteorite recoveries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Search areas for small meteorites should be planned with an ensemble of wind realisations rather than a single trajectory.
  • The released model archive could be used to test whether adding wind uncertainty improves recovery rates in past events.
  • The same high-resolution wind fields could be applied to refine landing predictions for controlled spacecraft re-entries.

Load-bearing premise

That the spread across models started at different times adequately captures the real uncertainty in the winds that act on the falling object.

What would settle it

Recoveries of meteorites that consistently land inside the 100 m observational error ellipse even when wind model variations are ignored would show that the wind shifts are not the dominant factor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.07144 by Hadrien Devillepoix, Martin Cup\'ak.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Maximum ground distance offset between hypo￾thetical vertically dropped meteorites from 30 km altitude, using WRF models initialised at different times (excluding the WRF shortest run). Box plot represents Q1/median/Q3, with the extremities extending to mininimum/maximum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Vertical wind profiles comparison between WRF models for the Arpu Kuilpu meteorite fall. Left: wind speeds with arrows indicating direction. Centre: Models applied to the meteorite in dark flight (matching the found meteorite mass, density and ejection state vector): choosing the model that best fits the found meteorite as reference, we note the horizontal positional difference as the meteorite is falling,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: WRF models wind speed and direction tracking for the Arpu Kuilpu meteorite. The 12z model (gold) is by far the worst match for the meteorite found on the ground. The mismatch mostly comes from the difference in wind speed in the jet stream layer, (seen here at 12 km altitude). From an operational point of view, this exercise re￾veals that model differences need to be looked at on a case by case basis ( [P… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Vertical wind profiles comparison between WRF models and the Aire Limit´ee Adaptation Dynamique D´eveloppement International (ALADIN) weather model digitised from L. Shrben´y et al. (2026), for the Pust´e U´ˇlany meteorite fall. Left: wind speeds with arrows indicating direction. Centre: Models applied to the meteorite in dark flight (matching the found meteorite mass, density and ejection state vector): c… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: New fall lines for the Pust´e U´ˇlany meteorite fall. Red lines correspond assuming a spherical shape (eastern ex￾tremities correspond to ∼5 g), with four WRF models (labels correspond to initialisation time). Two of the models match the find quite well laterally. Along the fall line, a higher drag shape (cylinder option in the code of M. C. Towner et al. (2022)) provides a somewhat better fit (yellow line… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of wind model choice on Murrili, including low-resolution (3 km) models. Large masses fall lines (0.5 to 5 kg) are represented, along with the fall location of Murrili. It is hard to objectively say which model fits the meteorite best. The ”d03 26T18z” low-resolution model (light blue) is clearly off though, indicating that in this case the higher resolution version of this run (blue) is of higher f… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

How much does the wind affect the path of meteorite falls? We finely model the lower ~30 km of the atmosphere using Weather Research and Forecasting open source tools at 1 km spatial resolution. Models initialised at different times give different results, which can be used as a proxy for uncertainty. We find that in most cases the differences on the ground positions are significant: median shift for a 1 kg meteorite is 143 m, doubling to 307 m for a 10 g rock, though these vary by over an order of magnitude between events. The differences wind model choice makes on the ground are significantly larger than the typical uncertainty on meteoroid state vector obtained from bright flight observations of the fireball (<100 m), and should be taken into account when predicting meteorite free-fall path to the ground. Unsurprisingly the cases where we see the largest differences coincide with documented extreme weather events. We also find that high spatial resolution models (1 vs. 3 km) tend to perform better. We have successfully used these models to guide field teams to the location of 12 fallen meteorites after fireball observations. We release as open data 1107 models we have calculated for 302 meteorite fall events and spacecraft re-entries around the world.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents 'Freo Doctor', an application of the open-source WRF model at 1 km horizontal resolution to simulate winds in the lowest ~30 km for dark-flight trajectory modeling of meteorites and re-entering spacecraft. Different model initialization times are used to generate an ensemble whose spread in predicted ground positions serves as a proxy for uncertainty. The central quantitative claim is that wind-model choice produces median ground-position shifts of 143 m for 1 kg meteorites and 307 m for 10 g fragments (varying by more than an order of magnitude across events), exceeding the <100 m typical uncertainty on meteoroid state vectors from bright-flight observations; the authors report successful guidance of recovery teams in 12 cases and release 1107 models for 302 events as open data.

Significance. If the initialization-time spread is shown to bound actual wind error, the work would establish that mesoscale wind modeling constitutes a first-order uncertainty source in meteorite recovery predictions and should be incorporated routinely. The public release of a large, reusable model archive is a concrete strength that directly supports community validation and follow-on studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and methods: the headline claim that wind-induced ground shifts exceed observational state-vector uncertainty (<100 m) rests on treating the spread across WRF runs initialized at different times as a quantitative uncertainty proxy. No section compares this ensemble spread to independent wind observations (radiosonde, lidar, or reanalysis profiles) at the relevant altitudes and times to demonstrate that the proxy bounds or matches actual model error.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that 'high spatial resolution models (1 vs. 3 km) tend to perform better' is presented without specifying the performance metric, the reference dataset, or the number of events used for the comparison, leaving the supporting evidence for the 1 km choice unclear.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract reports successful application in 12 cases but provides no quantitative recovery statistics (e.g., search-area reduction or distance to recovered stones) that would allow readers to assess the practical impact of the modeling.
  2. Notation for meteorite mass bins (1 kg vs. 10 g) and the exact number of initialization times per event should be stated explicitly in the methods to permit reproduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and agree that clarifications are required.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and methods: the headline claim that wind-induced ground shifts exceed observational state-vector uncertainty (<100 m) rests on treating the spread across WRF runs initialized at different times as a quantitative uncertainty proxy. No section compares this ensemble spread to independent wind observations (radiosonde, lidar, or reanalysis profiles) at the relevant altitudes and times to demonstrate that the proxy bounds or matches actual model error.

    Authors: We agree that the spread across initialization times is presented as a proxy for uncertainty rather than a validated bound on actual model error, and that no direct comparison to independent observations is included. This is a genuine limitation of the current work. In revision we will rephrase the relevant abstract and methods statements to explicitly identify the initialization-time ensemble as a proxy for sensitivity to initial conditions, add a dedicated paragraph discussing this choice and its limitations, and note that future validation against radiosonde or lidar profiles would be valuable. The central quantitative claim will be adjusted to reflect the proxy nature of the estimate. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that 'high spatial resolution models (1 vs. 3 km) tend to perform better' is presented without specifying the performance metric, the reference dataset, or the number of events used for the comparison, leaving the supporting evidence for the 1 km choice unclear.

    Authors: The statement is based on a subset of events for which both resolutions were computed. We will revise the abstract to qualify or remove the unqualified claim and will add the supporting details (performance metric, reference events, and count) to the methods and results sections of the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: external WRF modeling with ensemble proxy

full rationale

The paper applies open-source WRF atmospheric models initialized at different times to compute wind-affected trajectories for meteorite falls, treating the spread across runs as an uncertainty proxy and comparing resulting ground positions to independent fireball observations. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or ansatz imported from the authors' prior work; the central claims rest on external tool outputs and direct comparison to state-vector uncertainties reported from observations. This is a standard application of established numerical weather prediction methods.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Minimal free parameters; main reliance is on the established WRF modeling framework and the assumption that time-varied initializations proxy uncertainty.

free parameters (1)
  • model initialization times
    Different initialization times used as proxy for uncertainty, chosen by the authors.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The WRF model at 1 km resolution accurately captures wind fields relevant to meteorite falls in the lower 30 km.
    Relies on the fidelity of the standard atmospheric model without additional calibration mentioned in abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5760 in / 1245 out tokens · 28533 ms · 2026-06-27T21:08:39.650639+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    L., Towner, M

    Anderson, S. L., Towner, M. C., Fairweather, J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 930, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac66d4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac66d4 2022

  2. [2]

    A Cloud-Based Tool for Meteorite Recovery Using Drones and Machine Learning

    Anderson, S. L., Devillepoix, H. A. R., Lakerink, L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.19179, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.19179

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.19179 2026

  3. [3]

    Meteoritics & Planetary Science , author =

    Borovicka, J., & Kalenda, P. 2003, M&PS, 38, 1023, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2003.tb00296.x Boroviˇ cka, J., Spurn´ y, P., & Shrben´ y, L. 2020, AJ, 160, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9608

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2003.tb00296.x 2003

  4. [4]

    Meteoritics & Planetary Science , author =

    Brown, P. G., McCausland, P. J. A., Hildebrand, A. R., et al. 2023, M&PS, 58, 1773, doi: 10.1111/maps.14100

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.14100 2023

  5. [5]

    2025, Icarus, 425, 116345, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116345 8 https://desertfireballnetwork.github.io/freo doctor Chennaoui Aoudjehane, H., Agee, C

    Carbognani, A., Fenucci, M., Salerno, R., & Micheli, M. 2025, Icarus, 425, 116345, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116345 8 https://desertfireballnetwork.github.io/freo doctor Chennaoui Aoudjehane, H., Agee, C. B., Devillepoix, H., et al. 2024, in LPI Contributions, Vol. 86, 86th Annual Meeting of the Meteoritical Society Meeting, 6030

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116345 2025

  6. [6]

    Kulichkov, S. N. 2026, Icarus, 450, 117007, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2026.117007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2026.117007 2026

  7. [7]

    submitted to MAPS, 2026, The Journey of the Pindarri Punju Puri Meteorite: Trajectory, Infrasound Insights, and Recovery

    Clemente, I. submitted to MAPS, 2026, The Journey of the Pindarri Punju Puri Meteorite: Trajectory, Infrasound Insights, and Recovery

    2026

  8. [8]

    2026a, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2000-2009,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20370903

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026a, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2000-2009,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20370903

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20370903 2000

  9. [9]

    2026b, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2010,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20068574 14 Devillepoix et al

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026b, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2010,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20068574 14 Devillepoix et al

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20068574 2010

  10. [10]

    2026c, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2011,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20373031

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026c, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2011,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20373031

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20373031 2011

  11. [11]

    2026d, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2012,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20390830

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026d, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2012,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20390830

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20390830 2012

  12. [12]

    2026e, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2013,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19993752

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026e, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2013,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19993752

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19993752 2013

  13. [13]

    2026f, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2014,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20076769

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026f, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2014,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20076769

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20076769 2014

  14. [14]

    2026g, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2015,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20066406

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026g, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2015,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20066406

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20066406 2015

  15. [15]

    2026h, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2016,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19993886

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026h, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2016,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19993886

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19993886 2016

  16. [16]

    2026i, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2017,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20083376

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026i, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2017,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20083376

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20083376 2017

  17. [17]

    2026j, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2018,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20066732

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026j, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2018,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20066732

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20066732 2018

  18. [18]

    2026k, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2019,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19971296

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026k, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2019,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19971296

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19971296 2019

  19. [19]

    2026l, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2020,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19965050

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026l, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2020,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19965050

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19965050 2020

  20. [20]

    2026m, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2021,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19965309

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026m, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2021,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19965309

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19965309 2021

  21. [21]

    2026n, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2022,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19965661

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026n, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2022,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19965661

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19965661 2022

  22. [22]

    2026o, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2023,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19966240

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026o, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2023,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19966240

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19966240 2023

  23. [23]

    2026p, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2024,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19967162

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026p, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2024,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19967162

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19967162 2024

  24. [24]

    2026q, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2025,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19967973

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026q, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2025,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19967973

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19967973 2025

  25. [25]

    2026r, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2026,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19968955

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026r, Atmospheric Models for Meteorite Falls in 2026,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19968955

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19968955 2026

  26. [26]

    2026s, Atmospheric Models for Re-Entries,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19998570

    Devillepoix, H., & Cupak, M. 2026s, Atmospheric Models for Re-Entries,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19998570

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19998570

  27. [27]

    Devillepoix, H. A. R., Sansom, E. K., Bland, P. A., et al. 2018, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 53, 2212, doi: 10.1111/maps.13142

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.13142 2018

  28. [28]

    Devillepoix, H. A. R., Cup´ ak, M., Bland, P. A., et al. 2020, Planet. Space Sci., 191, 105036, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2020.105036

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2020.105036 2020

  29. [29]

    Devillepoix, H. A. R., Sansom, E. K., Shober, P., et al. 2022b, M&PS, 57, 1328, doi: 10.1111/maps.13820

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.13820

  30. [30]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1624, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02659-8

    Egal, A., Vida, D., Colas, F., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1624, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02659-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02659-8 2025

  31. [31]

    2025, Advances in Astronomy, 2025, 3041760, doi: 10.1155/aa/3041760 Freo Doctor 15

    Fries, M., & Fries, J. 2025, Advances in Astronomy, 2025, 3041760, doi: 10.1155/aa/3041760 Freo Doctor 15

    work page doi:10.1155/aa/3041760 2025

  32. [32]

    Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia , author =

    Rollinson, D. 2026, PASA, 43, e027, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2026.10162

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2026.10162 2026

  33. [33]

    T., & Griffin, A

    Halliday, I., Blackwell, A. T., & Griffin, A. A. 1978, JRASC, 72, 15

    1978

  34. [34]

    , author Sansom, E.K

    Hatty, I. R., Sansom, E. K., Devillepoix, H. A. R., et al. 2026, Icarus, 455, 117105, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2026.117105

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2026.117105 2026

  35. [35]

    Y., Lau, T

    He, J. Y., Lau, T. K., Chan, Y. W., et al. 2025, Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 137, 21, doi: 10.1007/s00703-025-01069-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s00703-025-01069-9 2025

  36. [36]

    Experimental Astronomy , author =

    Howie, R. M., Paxman, J., Bland, P. A., et al. 2017, Experimental Astronomy, doi: 10.1007/s10686-017-9532-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-017-9532-7 2017

  37. [37]

    2016, ECMWF Newsletter

    Ingleby, B., Rodwell, M., & Isaksen, L. 2016, ECMWF Newsletter. https://www.ecmwf.int/en/newsletter/149/ meteorology/global-radiosonde-network-under-pressure

    2016

  38. [38]

    A., Segal, M., & Koch, S

    Jankov, I., Gallus, W. A., Segal, M., & Koch, S. E. 2007, Weather and Forecasting, 22, 501, doi: 10.1175/WAF998.1

    work page doi:10.1175/waf998.1 2007

  39. [39]

    Jenniskens, P., & Devillepoix, H. A. R. 2025, M&PS, 60, 928, doi: 10.1111/maps.14321

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.14321 2025

  40. [40]

    H., Numan, D., et al

    Jenniskens, P., Shaddad, M. H., Numan, D., et al. 2009, Nature, 458, 485, doi: 10.1038/nature07920

    work page doi:10.1038/nature07920 2009

  41. [41]

    2021, M&PS, 56, 844, doi: 10.1111/maps.13653

    Jenniskens, P., Gabadirwe, M., Yin, Q.-Z., et al. 2021, M&PS, 56, 844, doi: 10.1111/maps.13653

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.13653 2021

  42. [42]

    2024, PSJ, 5, 253, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad8b22

    Kareta, T., Vida, D., Micheli, M., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 253, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad8b22

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad8b22 2024

  43. [43]

    A., Steeneveld, G.-J., & Holtslag, A

    Kleczek, M. A., Steeneveld, G.-J., & Holtslag, A. A. M. 2014, Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 152, 213, doi: 10.1007/s10546-014-9925-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10546-014-9925-3 2014

  44. [44]

    2023, Journal of Hydrology, 620, 129443, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129443

    Liu, Y., Zhuo, L., & Han, D. 2023, Journal of Hydrology, 620, 129443, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129443

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129443 2023

  45. [45]

    Lorenz, E. N. 1969, Tellus, 21, 289, doi: 10.3402/tellusa.v21i3.10086

    work page doi:10.3402/tellusa.v21i3.10086 1969

  46. [46]

    McMullan, S., Vida, D., Devillepoix, H. A. R., et al. 2024, M&PS, 59, 927, doi: 10.1111/maps.13977

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.13977 2024

  47. [47]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 3337, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab586

    Moilanen, J., Gritsevich, M., & Lyytinen, E. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 3337, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab586

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab586 2021

  48. [48]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.15440, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.15440

    Moilanen, J., Gritsevich, M., & Visuri, J. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.15440, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.15440

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.15440 2026

  49. [49]

    M., Abou-Ghanem, M., Cziczo, D

    Murphy, D. M., Abou-Ghanem, M., Cziczo, D. J., et al. 2023, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120, e2313374120, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2313374120 NCEP/NOAA. 2000, National Centers For Environmental Prediction FNL Operational Model Global Tropospheric

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2313374120 2023

  50. [50]

    Analyses, Continuing from July 1999, UCAR/NCAR - Research Data Archive, doi: 10.5065/D6M043C6

    work page doi:10.5065/d6m043c6 1999

  51. [51]

    Sharples, J., & Bowman, D. M. J. S. 2020, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 20, 1497, doi: 10.5194/nhess-20-1497-2020

    work page doi:10.5194/nhess-20-1497-2020 2020

  52. [52]

    D., & Radtke, H

    Osinski, R. D., & Radtke, H. 2020, Ocean Science, 16, 355, doi: 10.5194/os-16-355-2020

    work page doi:10.5194/os-16-355-2020 2020

  53. [53]

    M., Hedin, A

    Picone, J. M., Hedin, A. E., Drob, D. P., & Aikin, A. C. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1468, doi: 10.1029/2002JA009430 Priv´ e, N. C., Errico, R. M., & Tai, K.-S. 2014, Monthly Weather Review, 142, 1823, doi: 10.1175/MWR-D-13-00237.1 16 Devillepoix et al

    work page doi:10.1029/2002ja009430 2002

  54. [54]

    K., Bland, P

    Sansom, E. K., Bland, P. A., Towner, M. C., et al. 2020, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 55, 2157, doi: 10.1111/maps.13566

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.13566 2020

  55. [55]

    P., & Silber, E

    Schaible, L. P., & Silber, E. A. 2026, Geophys. Res. Lett., 53, e2025GL120188, doi: 10.1029/2025GL120188

    work page doi:10.1029/2025gl120188 2026

  56. [56]

    M., Devillepoix, H

    Shober, P. M., Devillepoix, H. A. R., Sansom, E. K., et al. 2022, M&PS, 57, 1146, doi: 10.1111/maps.13813 Shrben´ y, L., Boroviˇ cka, J., Spurn´ y, P., & Hankey, M. 2026, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, n/a, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/maps.70119

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.13813 2022

  57. [57]

    A., Bowman, D

    Silber, E. A., Bowman, D. C., Egan, S., et al. 2026, Geophys. Res. Lett., 53, e2025GL120042, doi: 10.1029/ 2025GL12004210.22541/essoar.177013777.73724621/v1

    arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    C., Klemp, J

    Skamarock, W. C., Klemp, J. B., Dudhia, J., et al. 2019, UCAR/NCAR, doi: 10.5065/1DFH-6P97

    work page doi:10.5065/1dfh-6p97 2019

  59. [59]

    P., Sushko, A., et al

    Spisak, J., Riedel, C. P., Sushko, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.02714, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.02714 Spurn´ y, P., Boroviˇ cka, J., & Shrben´ y, L. 2020, M&PS, 55, 376, doi: 10.1111/maps.13444 Spurn´ y, P., Boroviˇ cka, J., Shrben´ y, L., Hankey, M., &

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.02714 2026

  60. [60]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , author =

    Neubert, R. 2024, A&A, 686, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449735 Szab´ o, N. O., S´ arneczky, K., Kiss, L. L., et al. 2026, Acta Astronautica, 240, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2025.11.055 Tennessee Climate Office, East Tennessee State University. 2023, 2023 August – Tennessee Monthly Climate Report, Monthly Climate Report 72, East Tennessee State

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449735 2024

  61. [61]

    2022, Atmospheric Research, 271, 106085, doi: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2022.106085

    Tewari, M., Chen, F., Dudhia, J., et al. 2022, Atmospheric Research, 271, 106085, doi: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2022.106085

    work page doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2022.106085 2022

  62. [62]

    C., Jansen-Sturgeon, T., Cupak, M., et al

    Towner, M. C., Jansen-Sturgeon, T., Cupak, M., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 44, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac3df5 T´ oth, J., Povinec, P. P., Ozd´ ın, D., et al. 2026, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, n/a, doi: 10.1111/maps.70120

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac3df5 2022

  63. [63]

    2022, Wind Energy Science, 7, 1869, doi: 10.5194/wes-7-1869-2022

    Vemuri, A., Buckingham, S., Munters, W., Helsen, J., & van Beeck, J. 2022, Wind Energy Science, 7, 1869, doi: 10.5194/wes-7-1869-2022

    work page doi:10.5194/wes-7-1869-2022 2022

  64. [64]

    T., Peterson, R

    Warner, T. T., Peterson, R. A., & Treadon, R. E. 1997, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78, 2599, doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078 ⟨2599: ATOLBC⟩2.0.CO;2

    work page doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078 1997

  65. [65]

    forthcoming, 2026, Raja: a camera-observed EH3 fall from Oman

    Zappatini, A. forthcoming, 2026, Raja: a camera-observed EH3 fall from Oman

    2026

  66. [66]

    A., et al

    Zappatini, A., Gnos, E., Hofmann, B. A., et al. 2026, M&PS, 61, 522, doi: 10.1111/maps.70110

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.70110 2026